The saga of Reynor and Serral saw another chapter unfold in the online Douyu Cup, with Reynor taking a 4-1 grand finals victory over his rival to claim the first place prize of ¥50,000 CNY (~$7,199 USD). The victory marked Reynor's second finals win against Serral on the year, with the Italian Zerg having previously defeated Serral in July's DreamHack Europe finals.
Similar to the DreamHack Europe finals, Reynor had to climb up to the Douyu Cup grand finals from the losers bracket, having ceded an earlier match to Serral in the winners bracket. Curiously, Serral opted to go for several pool-first builds and other aggressive strategies in the grand finals, but none of them hit the mark. Indeed, defense was the name of the game in the grand finals, with Reynor dropping his only map when he went for an aggressive Roach-Bane-Ling all-in.
The Douyu Cup marks the second major tournament in a row where the 'foreigners' managed to topple the Korean contingent, following on the heels of DreamHack Summer Season Finals where Serral defeated Trap to claim the championship. While Cure and Zest came within a game of toppling Serral and Reynor respectively, they failed to close their Douyu cup series out in the end. With Rogue (IEM Katowice) and soO (TSL5) winning the first two major internationals in 2020, and Serral and Reynor winning the next two, fans should be extra-intrigued to see who will break the tie between Korea and the rest of the world at the DreamHack Fall Season Finals.
wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
On August 15 2020 05:34 luxon wrote: wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
Yes, you are missing that some people and organizers don't think so. I personally share your view.
On August 15 2020 05:34 luxon wrote: wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
Yes, you are missing that some people and organizers don't think so. I personally share your view.
Did the community already have talks about this loser bracket thing ? I don't appreciate it that much... and getting rid of it altogether would solve the problem in my opinion.
On August 15 2020 05:34 luxon wrote: wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
Yes, you are missing that some people and organizers don't think so. I personally share your view.
Did the community already have talks about this loser bracket thing ? I don't appreciate it that much... and getting rid of it altogether would solve the problem in my opinion.
I rationalize it by thinking of it as one big double elimination qualifier to reach the finals. With sufficient mental gymnastics one can view the finals as a separate event. At some level I know this makes no sense though...
IDK I've always found finals where the winner has a advantage to a lot less entertaining. I stopped watching when HotS came out, but I thought these discussions were pretty much over back then haha.
On August 15 2020 05:34 luxon wrote: wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
It is very rare to have extra lives at the finals of a double elim bracket in StarCraft 2. It was used years ago in the beggining, but it was very unpopular, so in time people stopped using it. The usual is for the winner bracket player to have 1 game up, but this of course varies between organizers.
On August 15 2020 05:34 luxon wrote: wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
Even if it's a bo3+bo5 or some thing like that, I believe Reynor will win this what ever. And winner's advantage is still quite big for serral as he showed less of what he got and have more time to prepare
On August 15 2020 05:34 luxon wrote: wtf how is that bracket setup fair lol thats not how double elimination tournaments work. serral should have two sets to beat reynor in the grand finals, otherwise it's single elimination for him but double for everyone else. this problem was solved hundreds of years ago, am i missing something?
It is very rare to have extra lives at the finals of a double elim bracket in StarCraft 2. It was used years ago in the beggining, but it was very unpopular, so in time people stopped using it. The usual is for the winner bracket player to have 1 game up, but this of course varies between organizers.
To add on to this, if I recall it was basically just MLG that had a double-elim bracket in early SC2, and this came with some weird extended-series stuff that was... not exactly well-liked.
The fact that series length increases deeper into the bracket messes with the natural double-elim rule. On the one hand, Serral "should" have to lose two matches like everyone else, but on the other hand, he lost more games in his match loss than anyone else not named Zest, so "should" that match loss be worth the same as other match losses earlier in the bracket? (I don't know that there's a good way to answer this other than to start running some simulations and seeing if there's all that much a difference at all.)
It's been a long time since I've seen a tournament that gave the winner's bracket finalist a BoX advantage (where the loser's bracket finalist would have to win two BoX series in a row), but I thought I remembered a recent tournament or two that gave the winner's finalist a 1-game lead in the BoX. In this case, even if Serral was awarded a free map, it wouldn't have mattered.
I think its absolutly the right to do it this was, as it is way more interesting for viewers
Also why dies no one complain for winners advantage in double elimination groups? In current GSL Stats allready lost to Dark in Group Stage 1. Rogue allready lost to Solar in Ro24 and Stats in Ro16. Where should Stats advantage be? Dream didn drop a Single Series until he was eliminated by Rogue in Ro8, where was his advantage, je just löst once and is allreadyout, while Rogue lost twice allreadyand is in the Finals. Winner advantage in Finals doesn t make sense, if you Don t Apple it in those case as well. Wich would be pretty dann bad for Viewing experience. That s why it s good to get rid of it completly. The advantage is, you have to Play lese games. Period.
On August 15 2020 13:58 SamirDuran wrote: I don't get why you guys are complaining about double elimination right now. I thought the advantage of the winners bracket is you play less games
Given the play on the day, I think Reynor winning was inevitable, but the lack of any winner's bracket advantage does leave a bad taste when one player loses the finals, despite having only dropped one series the whole tournament (let's not go telling that fewer games as a comparable advantage to being able to drop a whole series joke).
I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
Because the format is called "double elimination", yet Serral was only eliminated once.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
Because the format is called "double elimination", yet Serral was only eliminated once.
So, it's a fairness issue or a nomenclature issue? Because in the first case I think it isn't: everybody has the same chances and the same parachute, even when they end up not using it because they win every game. If it's the second there shouldn't be any problem to rename it as "double elimination (except the finals!)", but I don't think that's really needed.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept.
Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do.
Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
On the other hand, the player coming from the LB has worked harder to get there by playing more matches. Which actually matters a lot in weekenders (let's hope we get back there some day).
But personally I think the HSC format Bo5 into Bo3 is the best.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
On the other hand, the player coming from the LB has worked harder to get there by playing more matches. Which actually matters a lot in weekenders (let's hope we get back there some day).
But personally I think the HSC format Bo5 into Bo3 is the best.
I'm a big fan of how WCS 2012 dealt with double elimination. BO3 but the loser bracket dude needs to win 2 series. I think that is objectively the fairest way to deal with double eli.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
On the other hand, the player coming from the LB has worked harder to get there by playing more matches. Which actually matters a lot in weekenders (let's hope we get back there some day).
But personally I think the HSC format Bo5 into Bo3 is the best.
I'm a big fan of how WCS 2012 dealt with double elimination. BO3 but the loser bracket dude needs to win 2 series. I think that is objectively the fairest way to deal with double eli.
The only thing with that is that if the UB guy wins you can end up with a grand finals that is only two games long. With Bo5 it's at least three (and up to eight).
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
Everyone gets a chance to lose a series, even the winner. You said it yourself, a "chance" to lose a series is something everyone has but the winner didn't need to use.
I really don't see the problem here, none of you who are complaining about this are also whining about GSL group system which can also be called unfair. You can lose against Maru, win against Bunny and come back to meet Maru and lose again. While Patience won against Bunny and against Maru, a player you surely would have beaten yet you never got to face him and still you are knocked out. GSL groups are way more unfair and luck reliant than this.
The double elimination bracket is the best way to most reliably get the overall best players into the finals, it removes some of the freak upset potential or the chance for one player to get a lucky streak of just playing his best matchup. It also gives us more games to watch, double elimination really only has upsides there are no downsides.
Edit: For example of this look at Traps run, he started in the losers bracket and almost went to the losers finals.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
On the other hand, the player coming from the LB has worked harder to get there by playing more matches. Which actually matters a lot in weekenders (let's hope we get back there some day).
But personally I think the HSC format Bo5 into Bo3 is the best.
I'm a big fan of how WCS 2012 dealt with double elimination. BO3 but the loser bracket dude needs to win 2 series. I think that is objectively the fairest way to deal with double eli.
The only thing with that is that if the UB guy wins you can end up with a grand finals that is only two games long. With Bo5 it's at least three (and up to eight).
True. I think the HSC format is the best for excitement.
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
Everyone gets a chance to lose a series, even the winner. You said it yourself, a "chance" to lose a series is something everyone has but the winner didn't need to use.
I really don't see the problem here, none of you who are complaining about this are also whining about GSL group system which can also be called unfair. You can lose against Maru, win against Bunny and come back to meet Maru and lose again. While Patience won against Bunny and against Maru, a player you surely would have beaten yet you never got to face him and still you are knocked out. GSL groups are way more unfair and luck reliant than this.
The double elimination bracket is the best way to most reliably get the overall best players into the finals, it removes some of the freak upset potential or the chance for one player to get a lucky streak of just playing his best matchup. It also gives us more games to watch, double elimination really only has upsides there are no downsides.
1. Why does the winner not need to use the "chance" to lose a series in the finals? It's not a separate entity from the tournament.
2. In the GSL format if you play the same guy twice, both of you have lost a series. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.
3. I don't think anyone is arguing against double elimination format. It is the best format for playoffs for sure, but i don't see a reason to not tackle the inconsistency of finals vs rest of the bracket.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept.
Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do.
Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point.
No, there's no counter to my point. Fairness is not a matter of preferences. You said it yourself "a chance given to everyone" and that's the epitome of fairness. In the same way, in the finals, that chance is removed "for everyone" as well, which is still the epitome of fairness. And btw, I'm not saying that giving a +1 map or making the finals a double elim too would be unfair. Those rules would still be fair as well, I personally wouldn't like them just because, for me, it would diminish the hype of an "all or nothing" fresh final.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept.
Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do.
Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point.
No, there's no counter to my point. Fairness is not a matter of preferences. You said it yourself "a chance given to everyone" and that's the epitome of fairness. In the same way, in the finals, that chance is removed "for everyone" as well, which is still the epitome of fairness. And btw, I'm not saying that giving a +1 map or making the finals a double elim too would be unfair. Those rules would still be fair as well, I personally wouldn't like them just because, for me, it would diminish the hype of an "all or nothing" fresh final.
But in the finals there is only one player who can have that chance revoked....
As for the hype part, that is the shortcoming of double elimination. If you do it fairly, you get anti-hype. If you do it for hype, you make it unfair.
Serral has lost a couple tournament to Reynor this way now. Clearly, Reynor is a bracket strategist and loses tactfully and on purpose so he can have more time to plan his rematch in the finals
On August 15 2020 19:40 BisuDagger wrote: Serral has lost a couple tournament to Reynor this way now. Clearly, Reynor is a bracket strategist and loses tactfully and on purpose so he can have more time to plan his rematch in the finals
Reynor's won the mental war with Serral.
Serral's macro is unparalled, yet he continues to try and use timing attacks vs reynor.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept.
Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do.
Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point.
No, there's no counter to my point. Fairness is not a matter of preferences. You said it yourself "a chance given to everyone" and that's the epitome of fairness. In the same way, in the finals, that chance is removed "for everyone" as well, which is still the epitome of fairness. And btw, I'm not saying that giving a +1 map or making the finals a double elim too would be unfair. Those rules would still be fair as well, I personally wouldn't like them just because, for me, it would diminish the hype of an "all or nothing" fresh final.
But in the finals there is only one player who can have that chance revoked....
As for the hype part, that is the shortcoming of double elimination. If you do it fairly, you get anti-hype. If you do it for hype, you make it unfair.
In the finals there's only one player who gets to play at least one series more than the other finalist, and it still doesn't make it unfair because that player, like the wb finalist, could be any player and the conditions are the same for everybody involved from the beginning. I bet there's no pro that would like to be in the loser's bracket, thinking that the wb is unfair.
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it.
It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept.
Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do.
Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point.
No, there's no counter to my point. Fairness is not a matter of preferences. You said it yourself "a chance given to everyone" and that's the epitome of fairness. In the same way, in the finals, that chance is removed "for everyone" as well, which is still the epitome of fairness. And btw, I'm not saying that giving a +1 map or making the finals a double elim too would be unfair. Those rules would still be fair as well, I personally wouldn't like them just because, for me, it would diminish the hype of an "all or nothing" fresh final.
But in the finals there is only one player who can have that chance revoked....
As for the hype part, that is the shortcoming of double elimination. If you do it fairly, you get anti-hype. If you do it for hype, you make it unfair.
In the finals there's only one player who gets to play at least one series more than the other finalist, and it still doesn't make it unfair because that player, like the wb finalist, could be any player and the conditions are the same for everybody involved from the beginning. I bet there's no pro that would like to be in the loser's bracket, thinking that the wb is unfair.
But that is completely different since it is literally the point of the whole format...
Again, the finals are not a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament. You have to be consistent with the rules and if the upper bracket finalist hasn't lost a series yet, the least you can do is to give them a one map advantage (but preferably a double elimination finals obviously).
On August 15 2020 19:40 BisuDagger wrote: Serral has lost a couple tournament to Reynor this way now. Clearly, Reynor is a bracket strategist and loses tactfully and on purpose so he can have more time to plan his rematch in the finals
Reynor's won the mental war with Serral.
Serral's macro is unparalled, yet he continues to try and use timing attacks vs reynor.
Reynor is definitely in Serral's head, and Serral seems to have lost his confidence and that ice cold composure that carried him through 2018. The Dark envy isn't helping either.
"The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games (two series in the case of Starcraft). The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the W Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the W Bracket champion needs to beat the L Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the L Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice."
Therefore, this tournament can't legitimately be called a double elimination tournament, because the loser of the grand final wasn't doubly eliminated. What else to call it, then? How about, simply stupid? Okay, by this logic, even the +1 map advantage is dumb, but at least it's much less dumb.
All said, Reynor was clearly the strongest performer in the tournament, according to what we saw. Unfortunately, there was no fair 2nd series in the grand final to nail down, or dispute, this conclusion.
I remember getting flamed last time i posted this but back around 10 years ago when we used to have mlg and h2 tournaments double elim was used and based on maps.
if you had a 9 map pool the maps you used in the winner bracket would be carried over to the grand final and the grand final would start with the score of the WB final. This keeps the WB advantage and means you only play the same person on each map once. If they used that for this tournament it would be
Goldenwall - S - WB Deathaura - S - WB Pillars - R - WB Submarine - S - WB Everdream - R - GF Eternal empire - S - GF
It seems dumb to have the same maps in the final as the WB final as you may as well not use your best strat in the WB final knowing you may have to play the same person on the same map in the "grand final" For those saying the 2 game final would suck yes.. but normally if you have a BO5 Semi you have a BO11 final. The map pool for SC doesn't really work with this design.
Anyway i agree with everybody else, its dumb that serral lost 1 match in a double elim tournament and was eliminated. really poor design.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
Ohh that is so interesting, you criticize his conclusion because his opinion is only based off of the results of the recent tournament.
Great I am looking forward to you presenting the base for your opinion, which I am sure is well founded on the results of the most recent 5 tournaments statistics and how the results are showing terran is doing better in in TvZ.
If you want to say the basis of his opinion is lacking how about presenting the basis if your own, if it isn't just "gut feeling" that is.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
Ohh that is so interesting, you criticize his conclusion because his opinion is only based off of the results of the recent tournament.
Great I am looking forward to you presenting the base for your opinion, which I am sure is well founded on the results of the most recent 5 tournaments statistics and how the results are showing terran is doing better in in TvZ.
If you want to say the basis of his opinion is lacking how about presenting the basis if your own, if it isn't just "gut feeling" that is.
I didn't criticize his conclusion, I criticized his argument. I can't criticize someone's argument, if I don't argue my own stance? What logic is this?
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
It's not 1 tournament. It's every tournament this year besides GSL season 1. DRG also beat TY and Solar beat Maru there. The season finals and douyo cup were also not pretty on the TvZ front. The one time the top Zergs either weren't there or eliminated each other in ZvZ was at TSL and soO won the event beating Inno to do so. No matter how many Zergs you knock out another always shows up to either make the finals or win. IEM only had 2 Terrans in the top 12 and they both lost to Zergs. Those series were close but after so many losses Terran (and Protoss) need more than close series.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
It's not 1 tournament. It's every tournament this year besides GSL season 1. DRG also beat TY and Solar beat Maru there. The season finals and douyo cup were also not pretty on the TvZ front. The one time the top Zergs either weren't there or eliminated each other in ZvZ was at TSL and soO won the event beating Inno to do so. No matter how many Zergs you knock out another always shows up to either make the finals or win. IEM only had 2 Terrans in the top 12 and they both lost to Zergs. Those series were close but after so many losses Terran (and Protoss) need more than close series.
Or, do only playoffs stats matter to you? Serious question, because playoffs alone are a very small sample size, which makes making statistical conclusions out of them highly questionable.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
Ohh that is so interesting, you criticize his conclusion because his opinion is only based off of the results of the recent tournament.
Great I am looking forward to you presenting the base for your opinion, which I am sure is well founded on the results of the most recent 5 tournaments statistics and how the results are showing terran is doing better in in TvZ.
If you want to say the basis of his opinion is lacking how about presenting the basis if your own, if it isn't just "gut feeling" that is.
I didn't criticize his conclusion, I criticized his argument. I can't criticize someone's argument, if I don't argue my own stance? What logic is this?
That is how a discussion works, if we are discussing a particular idea/opinion, hopefully with the goal of reaching a consensus or at the very least broaden our perspective on the idea/opinion everyone needs to take part. Simply shooting down someones opinion is not genuinely adding anything to the discussion.
If I for example would say that it is my opinion is X and that is supported by a scientific study that were made on 5000 thousand people three years ago. Simply saying "that study is too small for you to have that opinion" is not arguing in good faith, if you believe the opposite do you have any basis for that opinion? Do you have study(research of recent tournament results for TvZ) or any other basis for your opinion that X isn't true? If not you are not really adding anything to this discussion at all.
Just sitting there grumpily disagreeing with everyone else because they don't have enough "evidence" to convince you while not presenting any evidence of your own is only derailing the discussion. Instead of saying why we are wrong how about trying to tell us why you are right.
Edit: Seems you did that already =D Will take a look!
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
Ohh that is so interesting, you criticize his conclusion because his opinion is only based off of the results of the recent tournament.
Great I am looking forward to you presenting the base for your opinion, which I am sure is well founded on the results of the most recent 5 tournaments statistics and how the results are showing terran is doing better in in TvZ.
If you want to say the basis of his opinion is lacking how about presenting the basis if your own, if it isn't just "gut feeling" that is.
I didn't criticize his conclusion, I criticized his argument. I can't criticize someone's argument, if I don't argue my own stance? What logic is this?
That is how a discussion works, if we are discussing a particular idea/opinion, hopefully with the goal of reaching a consensus or at the very least broaden our perspective on the idea/opinion everyone needs to take part. Simply shooting down someones opinion is not genuinely adding anything to the discussion.
If I for example would say that it is my opinion is X and that is supported by a scientific study that were made on 5000 thousand people three years ago. Simply saying "that study is too small for you to have that opinion" is not arguing in good faith, if you believe the opposite do you have any basis for that opinion? Do you have study(research of recent tournament results for TvZ) or any other basis for your opinion that X isn't true? If not you are not really adding anything to this discussion at all.
Just sitting there grumpily disagreeing with everyone else because they don't have enough "evidence" to convince you while not presenting any evidence of your own is only derailing the discussion. Instead of saying why we are wrong how about trying to tell us why you are right.
Edit: Seems you did that already =D Will take a look!
I didn't shoot down anyone's opinions. I addressed their arguments. If you have an issue with that, you have no place to lecture me about how a discussion works.
If you argue a claim using questionable evidence, it's not the responsibility of someone that disagrees with you to give their own evidence, but your own to provide more substantial evidence. If the court functions by your logic, there would no longer be any law and order. If science works that way, there would be no science. Attacking an argument even when you lack evidence for your own belief is not arguing in bad faith; it's merely maintaining intellectual integrity of a discussion. Someone tells you 2 + 2 = 5, and gives you a flawed proof of the claim, you don't need to have proof of the contrary to challenge their non-proof.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
It's not 1 tournament. It's every tournament this year besides GSL season 1. DRG also beat TY and Solar beat Maru there. The season finals and douyo cup were also not pretty on the TvZ front. The one time the top Zergs either weren't there or eliminated each other in ZvZ was at TSL and soO won the event beating Inno to do so. No matter how many Zergs you knock out another always shows up to either make the finals or win. IEM only had 2 Terrans in the top 12 and they both lost to Zergs. Those series were close but after so many losses Terran (and Protoss) need more than close series.
Or, do only playoffs stats matter to you? Serious question, because playoffs alone are a very small sample size, which makes making statistical conclusions out of them highly questionable.
Winrates are misleading especially without even distribution. It's possible for a low represented race to have an extremely high winrate without ever making it deep into tournaments. It's easier to have good winrates when T has only a few players in attendance like at IEM. Only 5 players in groups and they are 5 of the best terrans vs a lot of mid tier Z/P players. The fact that they were barely over 50% with that setup speaks for itself. It's similar the season finals being 80% in favor of Zerg because Serral/Reynor were 2 of only 3 Zergs there. I don't believe Zerg is 80-20 favored over Terran.
For TSL it had all the best Terrans besides Maru while missing Dark and Rogue. That plus Serral getting eliminated in ZvZ and some rather large TvZ mismatches such as Lambo/Cure and TY/Vanya explains the winrates. Plus it was played on the mythical GSL S1 map pool that everyone thinks favors Terran so much. If that map pool was actually the cause of GSL S1 then this event should have been much worse for Z.
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
Everyone gets a chance to lose a series, even the winner. You said it yourself, a "chance" to lose a series is something everyone has but the winner didn't need to use.
I really don't see the problem here, none of you who are complaining about this are also whining about GSL group system which can also be called unfair. You can lose against Maru, win against Bunny and come back to meet Maru and lose again. While Patience won against Bunny and against Maru, a player you surely would have beaten yet you never got to face him and still you are knocked out. GSL groups are way more unfair and luck reliant than this.
The double elimination bracket is the best way to most reliably get the overall best players into the finals, it removes some of the freak upset potential or the chance for one player to get a lucky streak of just playing his best matchup. It also gives us more games to watch, double elimination really only has upsides there are no downsides.
1. Why does the winner not need to use the "chance" to lose a series in the finals? It's not a separate entity from the tournament.
2. In the GSL format if you play the same guy twice, both of you have lost a series. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.
3. I don't think anyone is arguing against double elimination format. It is the best format for playoffs for sure, but i don't see a reason to not tackle the inconsistency of finals vs rest of the bracket.
In the GSL format there are 2 "winners" in the group stages. A tournament doesn't have two winners and the Ro8 onwards is single elimination so you're comparing apples to oranges.
On August 15 2020 20:43 Argonauta wrote: Refreshing that for this tournament results no one is balance whining about how OP is zerg.
The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
It's not 1 tournament. It's every tournament this year besides GSL season 1. DRG also beat TY and Solar beat Maru there. The season finals and douyo cup were also not pretty on the TvZ front. The one time the top Zergs either weren't there or eliminated each other in ZvZ was at TSL and soO won the event beating Inno to do so. No matter how many Zergs you knock out another always shows up to either make the finals or win. IEM only had 2 Terrans in the top 12 and they both lost to Zergs. Those series were close but after so many losses Terran (and Protoss) need more than close series.
Or, do only playoffs stats matter to you? Serious question, because playoffs alone are a very small sample size, which makes making statistical conclusions out of them highly questionable.
Winrates are misleading especially without even distribution. It's possible for a low represented race to have an extremely high winrate without ever making it deep into tournaments. It's easier to have good winrates when T has only a few players in attendance like at IEM. Only 5 players in groups and they are 5 of the best terrans vs a lot of mid tier Z/P players. The fact that they were barely over 50% with that setup speaks for itself. It's similar the season finals being 80% in favor of Zerg because Serral/Reynor were 2 of only 3 Zergs there. I don't believe Zerg is 80-20 favored over Terran.
For TSL it had all the best Terrans besides Maru while missing Dark and Rogue. That plus Serral getting eliminated in ZvZ and some rather large TvZ mismatches such as Lambo/Cure and TY/Vanya explains the winrates. Plus it was played on the mythical GSL S1 map pool that everyone thinks favors Terran so much. If that map pool was actually the cause of GSL S1 then this event should have been much worse for Z.
Fair enough, but it's hard to say if Rogue and Dark were present how much the percentage would swing. It's also hard to argue the level of ability these guys have relative to each other, though I do think that they're all very close to each other. Imo, it's better to just look at specific games and point out where balance looks wonky. For example, when I saw DRG's performance vs Inno, it looked so polished and clean that I don't think balance had anything to do with the result of that series.
On August 16 2020 02:22 tigon_ridge wrote: I didn't shoot down anyone's opinions. I addressed their arguments. If you have an issue with that, you have no place to lecture me about how a discussion works.
If you make a claim using questionable evidence, it's not the responsibility of someone that disagrees with you to give their own evidence, but your own to provide more substantial evidence. If the court functions by your logic, there would no longer be any law and order. If science works that way, there would be no science. Attacking an argument even when you lack evidence for your own belief is not arguing in bad faith; it's merely maintaining intellectual integrity of a discussion. Someone tells you 2 + 2 = 5, and gives you a flawed proof of the claim, you don't need to have proof of the contrary to challenge their non-proof.
Do you even read your own posts, you addressed their opinion, really? You end your post by creating a strawman argument of claiming the person you responded to claiming Dream was equal to Rogue and after your strawman you go on to add ", stop" to your sentence. You are not addressing anyones opinion you are simply being rude while criticizing others.
As if that wasn't enough you question the fact on why would someone base their opinion on one tournament, straight after basing your own opinion one single series (DRG vs Inno), that is called being a hypocrite.
Seriously read through your own post again and reflect.
On August 16 2020 00:23 tigon_ridge wrote:
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
I didn't know arguing about opinions and balance is equal to the courts judgements and scientific facts in your eyes. There are a lot of science out there that works simply because no one can find proof of its contrary. Its not facts but its theories and its how most of the world works, besides courts.
On August 15 2020 20:45 Poopi wrote: [quote] The obvious doesn’t need to be said
Anyone who thinks Zerg still has a strong upper hand in ZvT needs a reality check.
Not a strong upper hand but it's definitely atleast a bit zerg favored.
I'm seeing the opposite is true. Reynor and Serral's results should be considered outliers in any balance discussion.
What about all the best Terrans in GSL getting destroyed by DRG and Rogue despite that format supposedly being better for T players?
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
It's not 1 tournament. It's every tournament this year besides GSL season 1. DRG also beat TY and Solar beat Maru there. The season finals and douyo cup were also not pretty on the TvZ front. The one time the top Zergs either weren't there or eliminated each other in ZvZ was at TSL and soO won the event beating Inno to do so. No matter how many Zergs you knock out another always shows up to either make the finals or win. IEM only had 2 Terrans in the top 12 and they both lost to Zergs. Those series were close but after so many losses Terran (and Protoss) need more than close series.
Or, do only playoffs stats matter to you? Serious question, because playoffs alone are a very small sample size, which makes making statistical conclusions out of them highly questionable.
Winrates are misleading especially without even distribution. It's possible for a low represented race to have an extremely high winrate without ever making it deep into tournaments. It's easier to have good winrates when T has only a few players in attendance like at IEM. Only 5 players in groups and they are 5 of the best terrans vs a lot of mid tier Z/P players. The fact that they were barely over 50% with that setup speaks for itself. It's similar the season finals being 80% in favor of Zerg because Serral/Reynor were 2 of only 3 Zergs there. I don't believe Zerg is 80-20 favored over Terran.
For TSL it had all the best Terrans besides Maru while missing Dark and Rogue. That plus Serral getting eliminated in ZvZ and some rather large TvZ mismatches such as Lambo/Cure and TY/Vanya explains the winrates. Plus it was played on the mythical GSL S1 map pool that everyone thinks favors Terran so much. If that map pool was actually the cause of GSL S1 then this event should have been much worse for Z.
Fair enough, but it's hard to say if Rogue and Dark were present how much the percentage would swing. It's also hard to argue the level of ability these guys have relative to each other, though I do think that they're all very close to each other. Imo, it's better to just look at specific games and point out where balance looks wonky. For example, when I saw DRG's performance vs Inno, it looked so polished and clean that I don't think balance had anything to do with the result of that series.
I'll agree that DRG looks sick right now and that series result would not have changed even if ZvT was adjusted slightly. I just don't think we see Inno/TY/Maru/Cure go on a collective 10+ series losing streak vs DRG/Serral/Reynor/Solar/Rogue without there likely being some issues.
On August 16 2020 02:22 tigon_ridge wrote: I didn't shoot down anyone's opinions. I addressed their arguments. If you have an issue with that, you have no place to lecture me about how a discussion works.
If you make a claim using questionable evidence, it's not the responsibility of someone that disagrees with you to give their own evidence, but your own to provide more substantial evidence. If the court functions by your logic, there would no longer be any law and order. If science works that way, there would be no science. Attacking an argument even when you lack evidence for your own belief is not arguing in bad faith; it's merely maintaining intellectual integrity of a discussion. Someone tells you 2 + 2 = 5, and gives you a flawed proof of the claim, you don't need to have proof of the contrary to challenge their non-proof.
Do you even read your own posts, you addressed their opinion, really? You end your post by creating a strawman argument of claiming the person you responded to claiming Dream was equal to Rogue and after your strawman you go on to add ", stop" to your sentence. You are not addressing anyones opinion you are simply being rude while criticizing others.
As if that wasn't enough you question the fact on why would someone base their opinion on one tournament, straight after basing your own opinion one single series (DRG vs Inno), that is called being a hypocrite.
Seriously read through your own post again and reflect.
That GSL's long format favors T is a presumption, not a fact. Did you not watch how DRG displayed some of the most masterful ZvT to date against Inno? Why base your conclusion on a single tournament, anyhow? Dream is not comparable to Rogue in skill, stop.
I didn't know arguing about opinions and balance is equal to the courts judgements and scientific facts in your eyes. There are a lot of science out there that works simply because no one can find proof of its contrary. Its not facts but its theories and its how most of the world works, besides courts.
Much tone policing here. It's not uncommon around this forum for someone be impatience/condescending with another. At least there were no insults.
So what strawman here? I didn't say that he believed Dream and Rogue were equal. I only pointed out that they were not, which would address his argument regarding Rogue, DRG and GSL terrans. I don't know what part of "for example" made you think the DRG vs Inno thing was being used as self-sufficient evidence of an argument. It was used to illustrate/clarify a claim. Of course, if I felt like it, I could include many more examples, but I'm not arguing my stance; I'm merely stating it. Try reading what is there, instead of what isn't.
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept.
Everyone gets a chance to lose a series, even the winner. You said it yourself, a "chance" to lose a series is something everyone has but the winner didn't need to use.
I really don't see the problem here, none of you who are complaining about this are also whining about GSL group system which can also be called unfair. You can lose against Maru, win against Bunny and come back to meet Maru and lose again. While Patience won against Bunny and against Maru, a player you surely would have beaten yet you never got to face him and still you are knocked out. GSL groups are way more unfair and luck reliant than this.
The double elimination bracket is the best way to most reliably get the overall best players into the finals, it removes some of the freak upset potential or the chance for one player to get a lucky streak of just playing his best matchup. It also gives us more games to watch, double elimination really only has upsides there are no downsides.
1. Why does the winner not need to use the "chance" to lose a series in the finals? It's not a separate entity from the tournament.
2. In the GSL format if you play the same guy twice, both of you have lost a series. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.
3. I don't think anyone is arguing against double elimination format. It is the best format for playoffs for sure, but i don't see a reason to not tackle the inconsistency of finals vs rest of the bracket.
In the GSL format there are 2 "winners" in the group stages. A tournament doesn't have two winners and the Ro8 onwards is single elimination so you're comparing apples to oranges.
You do realize that i didn't take GSL format to the argument right?
EPT
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/misc/douyucup300x300.png)
ESL Pro Tour/2020/21/Masters/Summer/Statistics
